Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
Malcolm McCallum wrote: I don't know where we are in this conversation now, but MY 1983 escort station wagon got 30-40 mi/gal on average with up to 50 mi/gal on the highway. that wasn't a rating, that was what it actually got. So, why is it that all the new cars (including the hybrids) do so puke poor on mileage In 1983 many members of the general public, including the ecologists and eco-activists, were willing a drive a vehicle like your 2,500 pound 1983 Ford Escort wagon that had a 68 horsepower 1.6 liter engine, took 14 seconds to accelerate to 0 - 60 MPH, had a manual transmission, two wheel drive, small 13 inch wheels on narrow tread tires for minimal rolling resistance, and no weighty structural reinfocements to meet tough front, rear, side and rollover crash safety standards. By the 2000's car makers had learned how to make a 1.6 liter engine put out 110 horsepower. So that means to make a 68 horsepower engine like your 1983 Escort had, car makers had the option of decreasing the engine displacement down to 1.0 liters to gain a sizable 25% improvment in fuel economy. But the car makers didn't do that because the general public, including the ecologists and eco-activists, desired increasingly more powerful engines more than they desired improved fuel economy. So the car makers did not decrease engine displacement. Thus we have a situation today where the economy cars are about 60% more powerful than they were in the 1980's, but fuel economy is no better mostly because engine displacement is the same (or larger). Likewise the American public today, including the ecologists and eco-activists, prefer: a) an automatic transmission over a manual even though the latter optimizes fuel economy and low carbon emissions. b) four wheel drive or all wheel drive over two wheel drive even though the atter optimizes fuel economy and low carbon emissions. c) big wheels and wide tread tires over small wheels and narrow tread tires even though the latter optimizes fuel economy, low carbon emissions and conserves steel and rubber. d) weighty structural reinfocements to meet tough front, rear, side and rollover crash safety standards instead of no reinforcments even though the latter optimizes fuel economy, low carbon emissions. e) 65-75 MPH speed limits instead of 55 MPH speed limits even though the latter optimizes fuel economy, low carbon emissions. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
I don't know where we are in this conversation now, but MY 1983 escort station wagon got 30-40 mi/gal on average with up to 50 mi/gal on the highway. that wasn't a rating, that was what it actually got. So, why is it that all the new cars (including the hybrids) do so puke poor on mileage As for me, I'm waiting for the $60,000 price tag on the electric ZAP-X to drop about 15 grand, then I'll get one for every day driving. It goes 350 mi on one charge, and to recharge you simply plug it in for 10 min. Its a small car, but it looks like an everyday compact (unlike the nutty looking e-cars of the past). No kidding! If you were driving in city traffic all the time, $60K would be a bargain next to the gas you were dumping out your endpipe sitting in traffic. And, with projections of $4/gal gas soon, its sounding like a bigger bargain! On Thu, February 28, 2008 8:32 pm, Paul Cherubini wrote: David Bryant wrote: I'm not sure of your point here or where you get your data. A 72 VW micro-bus got around 20 mpg (less than a Subaru Forester, replete with airbags, crumple zones, and cup holders) and was one of the most dangerous vehicles on the road. OK, I'll try outlining another example. If you took a 3,300 pound 2007 Subaru Forester and installed a 80 HP 4 cyl engine in place of it's 171 HP engine, a manual transmission in place of it's automatic, and front wheel drive in place of all wheel drive, it's weight would drop to about 2,800 pounds and it's highway fuel economy would climb to about 37 MPG from 26 MPG. Then strip away the air bags and crash protection structural reinforcements and weight declines to 2500 lbs and fuel economy would rise to about 40 MPG. Along with this large (54%) increase in fuel economy there would be a corresponding large (54%) reduction in carbon emissions. At this point you'd have a vehicle with the same genera level of power, comfort, convenience and safety features as a early 1980's era vehicle and a vehicle like early 80's era ecologists and activists in the USA were willing to drive, but not present day ecologists. In addition, early 80's ecologists embraced the national 55 MPH speed limit, which further boosted highway fuel economy 15%. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, CA Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
Here's a Prius driver conversation about raising MPG that you may find interesting. http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/help-increasing-06-t929.html Folks are getting 50+ MPG. Jane On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Malcolm McCallum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know where we are in this conversation now, but MY 1983 escort station wagon got 30-40 mi/gal on average with up to 50 mi/gal on the highway. that wasn't a rating, that was what it actually got. So, why is it that all the new cars (including the hybrids) do so puke poor on mileage As for me, I'm waiting for the $60,000 price tag on the electric ZAP-X to drop about 15 grand, then I'll get one for every day driving. It goes 350 mi on one charge, and to recharge you simply plug it in for 10 min. Its a small car, but it looks like an everyday compact (unlike the nutty looking e-cars of the past). No kidding! If you were driving in city traffic all the time, $60K would be a bargain next to the gas you were dumping out your endpipe sitting in traffic. And, with projections of $4/gal gas soon, its sounding like a bigger bargain! On Thu, February 28, 2008 8:32 pm, Paul Cherubini wrote: David Bryant wrote: I'm not sure of your point here or where you get your data. A 72 VW micro-bus got around 20 mpg (less than a Subaru Forester, replete with airbags, crumple zones, and cup holders) and was one of the most dangerous vehicles on the road. OK, I'll try outlining another example. If you took a 3,300 pound 2007 Subaru Forester and installed a 80 HP 4 cyl engine in place of it's 171 HP engine, a manual transmission in place of it's automatic, and front wheel drive in place of all wheel drive, it's weight would drop to about 2,800 pounds and it's highway fuel economy would climb to about 37 MPG from 26 MPG. Then strip away the air bags and crash protection structural reinforcements and weight declines to 2500 lbs and fuel economy would rise to about 40 MPG. Along with this large (54%) increase in fuel economy there would be a corresponding large (54%) reduction in carbon emissions. At this point you'd have a vehicle with the same genera level of power, comfort, convenience and safety features as a early 1980's era vehicle and a vehicle like early 80's era ecologists and activists in the USA were willing to drive, but not present day ecologists. In addition, early 80's ecologists embraced the national 55 MPH speed limit, which further boosted highway fuel economy 15%. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, CA Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia co-founder, a href=http://www.worldbeyondborders.org;World Beyond Borders/a Check out my blog, a href=http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com;Perceiving Wholes/a But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy. --Plutarch, c.46-c.120 AD
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
I recently bought a Toyota Yaris for ~$13K (couldn't afford the Prius). It gets between 35-40 in the city, over 40 on the highway. It's small, but it does have a good-sized backseat and is a hatchback. I've been surprised at how much stuff I can fit into it. I saw a Smart Car the other day-- it doesn't get any more mpg than mine! My old '91 Toyota Tercel got a consistent 35 mpg, and my '82 Mazda before that. I don't know how anyone could justify buying a car with lower mpg unless they had special hauling or off-road needs. America has got to wake up and start making compromises. Carrie -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 1:00 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so Here's a Prius driver conversation about raising MPG that you may find interesting. http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/help-increasing-06-t929.html Folks are getting 50+ MPG. Jane On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Malcolm McCallum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know where we are in this conversation now, but MY 1983 escort station wagon got 30-40 mi/gal on average with up to 50 mi/gal on the highway. that wasn't a rating, that was what it actually got. So, why is it that all the new cars (including the hybrids) do so puke poor on mileage As for me, I'm waiting for the $60,000 price tag on the electric ZAP-X to drop about 15 grand, then I'll get one for every day driving. It goes 350 mi on one charge, and to recharge you simply plug it in for 10 min. Its a small car, but it looks like an everyday compact (unlike the nutty looking e-cars of the past). No kidding! If you were driving in city traffic all the time, $60K would be a bargain next to the gas you were dumping out your endpipe sitting in traffic. And, with projections of $4/gal gas soon, its sounding like a bigger bargain! On Thu, February 28, 2008 8:32 pm, Paul Cherubini wrote: David Bryant wrote: I'm not sure of your point here or where you get your data. A 72 VW micro-bus got around 20 mpg (less than a Subaru Forester, replete with airbags, crumple zones, and cup holders) and was one of the most dangerous vehicles on the road. OK, I'll try outlining another example. If you took a 3,300 pound 2007 Subaru Forester and installed a 80 HP 4 cyl engine in place of it's 171 HP engine, a manual transmission in place of it's automatic, and front wheel drive in place of all wheel drive, it's weight would drop to about 2,800 pounds and it's highway fuel economy would climb to about 37 MPG from 26 MPG. Then strip away the air bags and crash protection structural reinforcements and weight declines to 2500 lbs and fuel economy would rise to about 40 MPG. Along with this large (54%) increase in fuel economy there would be a corresponding large (54%) reduction in carbon emissions. At this point you'd have a vehicle with the same genera level of power, comfort, convenience and safety features as a early 1980's era vehicle and a vehicle like early 80's era ecologists and activists in the USA were willing to drive, but not present day ecologists. In addition, early 80's ecologists embraced the national 55 MPH speed limit, which further boosted highway fuel economy 15%. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, CA Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia co-founder, a href=http://www.worldbeyondborders.org;World Beyond Borders/a Check out my blog, a href=http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com;Perceiving Wholes/a But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy. --Plutarch, c.46-c.120 AD
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
Hi Jane, Robert's point was about the resources taken to manufacture a new car, hybrid or whatever.. all the metal, glass, plastics, chemicals etc, mining those, energy costs to manufacture them, pollution costs to the environment and so on, When one discards an old car and goes for a hybrid, one has to add all the above costs to the benefits of lower emissions per mile. Its not just C emissions that accompany the manufacture of a car, there is a bunch of other externalities if one were to track. Of course, given the necessity of driving for most (In the US), one can't run an old car forever, unless one is a mechanic, understanding and taking care of every strut, wire and screw. Maybe the breakeven in terms of environmental costs of continuing with the old car vs. a hybrid may happen in 10 years, I do not know, and its very difficult to put $ costs anyway to damage to habitat done by resource extraction (mining,drilling etc) and pollution. Thats the emerging field of natural resource economics ( thats been emerging for at least trhe past 10 years as i'm aware of).. cheers amartya Jane Shevtsov wrote: Hi Bob, Can you please cite some numbers to back up your claim? 30 MPG is pretty good (although old cars tend to be worse from the point of view of toxic emissions), but every examination I've seen of the question of whether the improved efficiency of a hybrid offsets the C emissions due to its manufacture has concluded that the hybrid is better than keeping the old car. (I guess that might not be true if you do very little driving.) Jane On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Robert Fireovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McDonough is like the Toyota ads that would seduce me into trading in my 1994, 30 mpg Prism for a brand new Prius. Considering the quantities of non-renewable natural resources that are extracted, transported and transformed into a new car (and the amount of Nature that is destroyed in its wake), I would have to own the Prius for over 50 years to pay back that resource debt and generate any net improvement in my environmental footprint. Young people love (and have taught me the power of) You-Tube. Have them watch this short spot, The Story of Stuff, to see what I mean... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqZMTY4V7Ts - Bob Fireovid W. McDonough and M. Braungart's Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things (2002) might be interesting for your summer reading list. They suggest a proactive approach to environmental issues that is refreshing, maybe even hopeful.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
Sure, but McDonough has always argued that the costs of disposal be a factor in any life cycle analysis. Indeed that's the basis for his cradle-to-cradle approach. The only evidence I can find on his own position regarding hybrid technology in automobiles is an attribution from 2005 in support of plug-in hybrid vehicles (which are substantially different from the Prius, IMO). See: http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/148.html Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ At 10:27 AM -0500 2/28/08, Amartya Saha wrote: Hi Jane, Robert's point was about the resources taken to manufacture a new car, hybrid or whatever.. all the metal, glass, plastics, chemicals etc, mining those, energy costs to manufacture them, pollution costs to the environment and so on, When one discards an old car and goes for a hybrid, one has to add all the above costs to the benefits of lower emissions per mile. Its not just C emissions that accompany the manufacture of a car, there is a bunch of other externalities if one were to track. Of course, given the necessity of driving for most (In the US), one can't run an old car forever, unless one is a mechanic, understanding and taking care of every strut, wire and screw. Maybe the breakeven in terms of environmental costs of continuing with the old car vs. a hybrid may happen in 10 years, I do not know, and its very difficult to put $ costs anyway to damage to habitat done by resource extraction (mining,drilling etc) and pollution. Thats the emerging field of natural resource economics ( thats been emerging for at least trhe past 10 years as i'm aware of).. cheers amartya Jane Shevtsov wrote: Hi Bob, Can you please cite some numbers to back up your claim? 30 MPG is pretty good (although old cars tend to be worse from the point of view of toxic emissions), but every examination I've seen of the question of whether the improved efficiency of a hybrid offsets the C emissions due to its manufacture has concluded that the hybrid is better than keeping the old car. (I guess that might not be true if you do very little driving.) Jane On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Robert Fireovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McDonough is like the Toyota ads that would seduce me into trading in my 1994, 30 mpg Prism for a brand new Prius. Considering the quantities of non-renewable natural resources that are extracted, transported and transformed into a new car (and the amount of Nature that is destroyed in its wake), I would have to own the Prius for over 50 years to pay back that resource debt and generate any net improvement in my environmental footprint. Young people love (and have taught me the power of) You-Tube. Have them watch this short spot, The Story of Stuff, to see what I mean... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqZMTY4V7Ts - Bob Fireovid W. McDonough and M. Braungart's Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things (2002) might be interesting for your summer reading list. They suggest a proactive approach to environmental issues that is refreshing, maybe even hopeful.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
Just to add some more complexity to this model: The majority of the mass of an old car is recyclable as scrap ferrous metals, the most recycled material in America. So do we know how much energy is saved by the recycling of steel and iron from your old car vs. mining and smelting new steel from iron ore? As long as we're splitting hairs. David Bryant On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Amartya Saha wrote: Hi Jane, Robert's point was about the resources taken to manufacture a new car, hybrid or whatever.. all the metal, glass, plastics, chemicals etc, mining those, energy costs to manufacture them, pollution costs to the environment and so on, When one discards an old car and goes for a hybrid, one has to add all the above costs to the benefits of lower emissions per mile. Its not just C emissions that accompany the manufacture of a car, there is a bunch of other externalities if one were to track. Of course, given the necessity of driving for most (In the US), one can't run an old car forever, unless one is a mechanic, understanding and taking care of every strut, wire and screw. Maybe the breakeven in terms of environmental costs of continuing with the old car vs. a hybrid may happen in 10 years, I do not know, and its very difficult to put $ costs anyway to damage to habitat done by resource extraction (mining,drilling etc) and pollution. Thats the emerging field of natural resource economics ( thats been emerging for at least trhe past 10 years as i'm aware of).. cheers amartya Jane Shevtsov wrote: Hi Bob, Can you please cite some numbers to back up your claim? 30 MPG is pretty good (although old cars tend to be worse from the point of view of toxic emissions), but every examination I've seen of the question of whether the improved efficiency of a hybrid offsets the C emissions due to its manufacture has concluded that the hybrid is better than keeping the old car. (I guess that might not be true if you do very little driving.) Jane On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Robert Fireovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McDonough is like the Toyota ads that would seduce me into trading in my 1994, 30 mpg Prism for a brand new Prius. Considering the quantities of non-renewable natural resources that are extracted, transported and transformed into a new car (and the amount of Nature that is destroyed in its wake), I would have to own the Prius for over 50 years to pay back that resource debt and generate any net improvement in my environmental footprint. Young people love (and have taught me the power of) You-Tube. Have them watch this short spot, The Story of Stuff, to see what I mean... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqZMTY4V7Ts - Bob Fireovid W. McDonough and M. Braungart's Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things (2002) might be interesting for your summer reading list. They suggest a proactive approach to environmental issues that is refreshing, maybe even hopeful.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
In Cuba it's routine to see 40-60 year old cars on the road. Cuban's realize a car's body and frame can last indefinately and all the drivetrain and suspension componets can be replaced as they wear out. Modern components such as engines with emission controls can also be installed in these old vehicles. But I don't believe the ecologists and environmental activists in the first world countries could stomach driving 30 year old, let alone 50 year old vehicles for a variety of comfort and convenience reasons such as: they can't accelerate and corner fast, they take some muscle to steer and brake (no power steering or power brakes) must be manually shifted, don't have air bags, crash protection beams in the doors and so forth. Practical example: 30-40 years ago the standard workhorse field vehicle for an ecologist was a Volkswagen Bus with a 4 cylinder engine, manual transmission, no air conditioning, marginal high speed cornering capability and took 25 seconds to accelerate from 0 - 60 MPH. Despite it's substantial size and interior roominess, a VW Bus weighed only 3000 pounds because it wasn't burdened with all the comfort, convenience and safety features todays ecologists and activists demand such as a powerful engine, all wheel drive, automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, heavy steel beams in the doors and dashboard for crash protection, and so forth. Now ask yourself: would today's ecologists and activists in the first world countries be enthusiastically willing to buy old VW Buses instead of heavy and powerful Subaru's 4Runners and Jeeps to help save the planet if the VW's were still available? I think Exxon executives know the answer to that question and that's why Exxon predicts the world demand for petroleum and associated carbon emissions will continue to increase for the next 30 years. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
Although there is some validity to Paul's comments, there are some omissions too. The main one is that in most parts of N. America and Europe cars don't last as long as they do in Cuba. Two reasons: (1) the main one is that frames don't last indefinitely in countries where salt is used on winter roads. I've gotten 10 years out of a car in Nova Scotia, but by then just about any car is rusted out. (2) There is a repair infrastructure in Cuba and other poor countries to keep cars running that doesn't exist in richer countries. Hell, I had to buy a new assembly for a bicycle that was five years old only to be told that the manufacturer no longer produced that part (which I had fabricated anyway). Except for classics, parts for old cars are really hard to find - and often expensive. Also I should mention than although Americans drive automatics, in the rest of the world they are found only on luxury cars for the most part. I drive a Kia Sorento, an SUV which comes in Portugal as a 4-cylinder standard and in the US as a V-6 automatic. There is a cultural factor here which is not the fault of ecologists. Finally, do we really want to give up our safety features? I guess we could save some weight by removing seat belts and air bags -- how about that, Paul? Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Paul Cherubini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so In Cuba it's routine to see 40-60 year old cars on the road. Cuban's realize a car's body and frame can last indefinately and all the drivetrain and suspension componets can be replaced as they wear out. Modern components such as engines with emission controls can also be installed in these old vehicles. But I don't believe the ecologists and environmental activists in the first world countries could stomach driving 30 year old, let alone 50 year old vehicles for a variety of comfort and convenience reasons such as: they can't accelerate and corner fast, they take some muscle to steer and brake (no power steering or power brakes) must be manually shifted, don't have air bags, crash protection beams in the doors and so forth. Practical example: 30-40 years ago the standard workhorse field vehicle for an ecologist was a Volkswagen Bus with a 4 cylinder engine, manual transmission, no air conditioning, marginal high speed cornering capability and took 25 seconds to accelerate from 0 - 60 MPH. Despite it's substantial size and interior roominess, a VW Bus weighed only 3000 pounds because it wasn't burdened with all the comfort, convenience and safety features todays ecologists and activists demand such as a powerful engine, all wheel drive, automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, heavy steel beams in the doors and dashboard for crash protection, and so forth. Now ask yourself: would today's ecologists and activists in the first world countries be enthusiastically willing to buy old VW Buses instead of heavy and powerful Subaru's 4Runners and Jeeps to help save the planet if the VW's were still available?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
Paul, I'm not sure of your point here or where you get your data. A 72 VW micro-bus got around 20 mpg (less than a Subaru Forester, replete with airbags, crumple zones, and cup holders) and was one of the most dangerous vehicles on the road. A simple panic stop could put an unbelted driver through the windshield. Having busted my knuckles under too many 40 yr old cars to count I can tell you that few would allow installation of pollution controls without a major rebuild. Modern cars get roughly 2X the horsepower per cylinder displacement of even the most steroid pumped 60's muscle car. The impetus for this advancement came during the 70's oil embargo when engineers tried to squeeze as much energy as they could from a gallon gas. To accomplish this compression ratios were increased, cylinder heads were completely redesigned, additional intake and/or exhaust valves and spark plugs were added, carburetors were replaced with fuel injection and distributors with computers. To do that to a VW Bus would cost more than a TOYOTA 4 Runner. The benefit was not only increased fuel mileage but greatly decreased hydrocarbon emissions. But I don't think any of this was the topic of the McDonough thread: Does replacing you 10 yr old car with a hybrid reduce your carbon footprint? David Bryant On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Paul Cherubini wrote: In Cuba it's routine to see 40-60 year old cars on the road. Cuban's realize a car's body and frame can last indefinately and all the drivetrain and suspension componets can be replaced as they wear out. Modern components such as engines with emission controls can also be installed in these old vehicles. But I don't believe the ecologists and environmental activists in the first world countries could stomach driving 30 year old, let alone 50 year old vehicles for a variety of comfort and convenience reasons such as: they can't accelerate and corner fast, they take some muscle to steer and brake (no power steering or power brakes) must be manually shifted, don't have air bags, crash protection beams in the doors and so forth. Practical example: 30-40 years ago the standard workhorse field vehicle for an ecologist was a Volkswagen Bus with a 4 cylinder engine, manual transmission, no air conditioning, marginal high speed cornering capability and took 25 seconds to accelerate from 0 - 60 MPH. Despite it's substantial size and interior roominess, a VW Bus weighed only 3000 pounds because it wasn't burdened with all the comfort, convenience and safety features todays ecologists and activists demand such as a powerful engine, all wheel drive, automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, heavy steel beams in the doors and dashboard for crash protection, and so forth. Now ask yourself: would today's ecologists and activists in the first world countries be enthusiastically willing to buy old VW Buses instead of heavy and powerful Subaru's 4Runners and Jeeps to help save the planet if the VW's were still available? I think Exxon executives know the answer to that question and that's why Exxon predicts the world demand for petroleum and associated carbon emissions will continue to increase for the next 30 years. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
David Bryant wrote: I'm not sure of your point here or where you get your data. A 72 VW micro-bus got around 20 mpg (less than a Subaru Forester, replete with airbags, crumple zones, and cup holders) and was one of the most dangerous vehicles on the road. OK, I'll try outlining another example. If you took a 3,300 pound 2007 Subaru Forester and installed a 80 HP 4 cyl engine in place of it's 171 HP engine, a manual transmission in place of it's automatic, and front wheel drive in place of all wheel drive, it's weight would drop to about 2,800 pounds and it's highway fuel economy would climb to about 37 MPG from 26 MPG. Then strip away the air bags and crash protection structural reinforcements and weight declines to 2500 lbs and fuel economy would rise to about 40 MPG. Along with this large (54%) increase in fuel economy there would be a corresponding large (54%) reduction in carbon emissions. At this point you'd have a vehicle with the same genera level of power, comfort, convenience and safety features as a early 1980's era vehicle and a vehicle like early 80's era ecologists and activists in the USA were willing to drive, but not present day ecologists. In addition, early 80's ecologists embraced the national 55 MPH speed limit, which further boosted highway fuel economy 15%. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, CA
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
Hi Bob, Can you please cite some numbers to back up your claim? 30 MPG is pretty good (although old cars tend to be worse from the point of view of toxic emissions), but every examination I've seen of the question of whether the improved efficiency of a hybrid offsets the C emissions due to its manufacture has concluded that the hybrid is better than keeping the old car. (I guess that might not be true if you do very little driving.) Jane On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Robert Fireovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McDonough is like the Toyota ads that would seduce me into trading in my 1994, 30 mpg Prism for a brand new Prius. Considering the quantities of non-renewable natural resources that are extracted, transported and transformed into a new car (and the amount of Nature that is destroyed in its wake), I would have to own the Prius for over 50 years to pay back that resource debt and generate any net improvement in my environmental footprint. Young people love (and have taught me the power of) You-Tube. Have them watch this short spot, The Story of Stuff, to see what I mean... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqZMTY4V7Ts - Bob Fireovid W. McDonough and M. Braungart's Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things (2002) might be interesting for your summer reading list. They suggest a proactive approach to environmental issues that is refreshing, maybe even hopeful. -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia co-founder, a href=http://www.worldbeyondborders.org;World Beyond Borders/a Check out my blog, a href=http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com;Perceiving Wholes/a But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy. --Plutarch, c.46-c.120 AD
